fireweed (northern_wind) wrote,

Уперлась в расхождение любимой научной теории с реальностью. Собственно, давно уже, а сейчас окончательно.
Печаль. Она была хорошая и в нее хотелось верить.

Мэтт Джонс про математическое моделирование когнитивных процессов и прочий технический прогресс, очень точно, по-моему:
"In the behavioral sciences, we are generally in the more fortunate position of being able to conduct the key experiments. However, there is still a danger of confusing technical advances with theoretical progress, and the allure of the former can lead to the neglect of the latter. As the new framework develops, it is critical to keep the research tied to certain basic questions, such as: What theoretical issues are at stake? What are the core assumptions of the approach? What general predictions does it make? What is being explained and what is the explanation? How do the explanations it provides relate, logically, to those of existing approaches? What is the domain of inquiry, and what questions are outside its scope? This grounding is necessary for disciplined growth of the field. Otherwise, there is a tendency to focus primarily on generating existence proofs of what the computational framework can achieve."
- Matt Jones, Bayesian Fundamentalism or Enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition
Tags: а голова предмет темный

  • (no subject)

    Я время от времени думаю о том, что Ренессанс в массовом понимании и безумная, почти сновидческая красота Ренессанса каким он был — несводимо разные…

  • (no subject)

    Хорошей доброй музыки вам. Люблю их безмерно.

  • (no subject)

    Какая чудесная.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded